[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: removal instead of orphaning?

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:38:02PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > > > I believe that orphanage is a burden to our community [...]
> > > 
> > > Who is this a burden for? 
> > Transitions. Mandatory packaging changes, like python helper one.
> > True, a package can get an RC bug and be removed during these processes
> > but that requires more time and more effort
> Both pro-active and reactive removals cost time and effort. I don't
> think the difference is significant. But I don't have hard numbers. A
> study on what method is best would cost time and effort in itself.
If that RoM is done instead of O it's hardly any effort.
But it takes a lot of effort to study a package affected by your
transition and find out what to do with it.

> > and do we even remove orphaned packages if they have an RC bug?
> Yes, packages with RC bugs are automatically removed from testing
> nowadays.
Which, of course, is not the same as removing them from unstable.

> > > If no-one used the package, then sure, the package is really useless.
> > > But if at least some people are using it, it has value.
> > Should unrelated people spend time on packages they don't care about?
> No, that's why they are orphaned in the first place.
But Debian is a distribution, not a pile of random packages, and we spend
effort to make those packages work together. This requires spending time
on packages which nobody else cares about but which are still a part of
the distribution.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: